|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NY: NY Sheriff to Constituents: Keep Your Handguns and Toss the Permit Applications
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A New York lawman is winning plaudits from gun owners over his stance on firearm regulation—he wants less of it. Fulton County Sheriff Thomas J. Lorey is already known as a supporter of the Second Amendment and a member of the Oath Keepers, an organization of military personnel and police officers who vow to refuse unconstitutional orders. Despite the Empire State's fame as a jurisdiction unfriendly to private gun ownership—or, really, any activity beyind the reach of government officials—Lorey isn't alone in his views. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(1/22/2015)
|
| Again, KUDOS to Sheriff Lorey ! In a state as rife with corruption and political malfeasance as NYS, its encouraging to see this Fulton Cty. sheriff living his oath everyday ! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
